https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280334 Section 3 of Ordinance 14 of 1943 was treated as independently operative and capable of supporting the detention regime without depending on section 2, because it dealt with remedies and validation rather than amendment of the parent law. Rule 26 of the Defence of India Rules required the Provincial Government's own satisfaction before detention, and that satisfaction had to be real, not merely recited. Where the record showed mechanical action and no proper application of mind by the competent authority, the detention orders were bad in law. The dissent would have upheld the Bengal orders on the presumption of regularity in part, but agreed that the other appeals should fail. en-us Tue, 31 Aug 1943 00:00:00 +0630 Wed, 01 May 2019 13:25:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280334 Section 3 of Ordinance 14 of 1943 was treated as independently operative and capable of supporting the detention regime without depending on section 2, because it dealt with remedies and validation rather than amendment of the parent law. Rule 26 of the Defence of India Rules required the Provincial Government's own satisfaction before detention, and that satisfaction had to be real, not merely recited. Where the record showed mechanical action and no proper application of mind by the competent authority, the detention orders were bad in law. The dissent would have upheld the Bengal orders on the presumption of regularity in part, but agreed that the other appeals should fail. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 31 Aug 1943 00:00:00 +0630 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280334